Interference No. 103,675
evidence which establishes the basis for their belief as expressed in
the petition or when Chen et al. first "discovered" their alleged
mistake.
In part, Chen et al. rely on Ex parte Marsili, 214 USPQ 904
(Bd. App. 1979) in support of their argument for granting their
motion. In Marsili, an opinion dealing with the ex parte prosecution
of a pending application in which applicants sought to change the
structural formula for a compound originally believed to include an
imidazoline moiety to a structural formula where the ring was
unsaturated, that is, an imidazole ring, there was evidence in the
nature of analytical data and literature to support the propriety and
scientific soundness of the proposed changes submitted during the
prosecution of the application. Here, the difference is more than
simply whether or not a ring moiety is saturated or unsaturated.
Further, there was no evidence filed during the prosecution of Chen et
al.'s earlier filed applications which established through analytical
data or literature reference that the original disclosure improperly
identified the products prepared from the fluorination of taxol with
DAST or that the error would have been instantly recognized or readily
discoverable by a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Nathan,
328 F.2d 1005, 140 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1964) a case also relied on by Chen
et al., is discussed in Marsili and in Nathan, as in the facts in
31
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007